One of the pieces of evidence which powerfully supports a scientific hypothesis is whether or not it can allow a person to predict some aspect of the future. For example, the Theory of Evolution predicts that certain kinds of fossils will be found and how organisms will change with time, and gravitational theory predicts how quickly things will accelerate downward if dropped. Some people claim that the Bible has made predictions that came true and that these predictions should be taken as evidence that Christianity is a correct model of reality.

Darfius wrote

For instance, if you'll look in my debate with Pawn, Daniel the prophet successfully predicted the world empires including Alexander the Great a couple of centuries before he was born.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20450&page=2

Based on his post in the "Debate with Darfius" thread, I believe he is referring to Daniel 2, especially Daniel 31-45. Here is the text of Daniel 31-45, copied from Darfius' post:

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Does this prophecy count as a scientific hypothesis which successfully made scientific predictions?

I'll copy-paste Darfius' arguments here:

Bible passage: Daniel 2:32-33
Written: about 530 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history; to be completed during End Times

In Daniel 2:32-33, there is a passage that symbolically identified the four great kingdoms that would rise up and control much of world, beginning in Daniel's lifetime. The passage uses symbolic imagery:

1. The head of gold, as Daniel explained, refers to the Babylonian empire that ruled much of the world about 2600 years ago.

2. Daniel said that the head-of-gold empire would be followed by an empire symbolized by arms of silver. Christian scholars have often interpreted this to refer to the Medo-Persian empire which later conquered the Babylonian empire. The scholars say that the two arms refer to the two groups - the Medes and the Persians - who comprised the Medo-Persian empire.

3. The third kingdom was symbolized by the statue's belly and thighs of brass. Some scholars believe that this is a reference to the Grecian empire, which conquered the Medo-Persian empire. The symbol of a belly and thighs of brass suggests that the kingdom was to start out as a united empire but end up as a divided empire. Under the leadership of Alexander the Great, the Grecian Empire was a united empire. But after Alexander's death, the empire was divided into four parts and was later reduced to two parts.

4. The fourth symbol - that of iron legs and feet that were part iron and part clay - has often been suggested to be a reference to the Roman Empire, which later conquered the Grecian Empire. The Roman Empire was very powerful, but it was also very diverse, claiming dominion over a wide variety of different nations. That diversity later contributed to the downfall of the empire.

These four kingdoms ruled over much of the world, and each of the four ruled over the land of Israel during times in which a significant number of Jews - and perhaps a majority of Jews - were living in their homeland. Before the collapse of the Roman Empire, Jerusalem was destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced into exile. Even today, a majority of Jews still live outside of Israel. Many Christian scholars suggest that the Roman Empire will be revived and will once again seek to control Israel.

Quick aside, the European Union refers to itself as the Revived Roman Empire.

Originally posted by AThousandYoungOne of the pieces of evidence which powerfully supports a scientific hypothesis is whether or not it can allow a person to predict some aspect of the future. For example, the Theory of Evolution predicts that certain kinds of fossils will be found and how organisms will change with time, and gravitational theory predicts how quickly things will accel ...[text shortened]... Roman Empire.

I'm sure you didn't mean to, Thousand, but you didn't include my later addition of Daniel expounding on a dream he himself had that detailed the 4 kingdoms. I'll include it here:

"8:15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. 8:17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. 8:18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. 8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. "

Originally posted by DarfiusI'm sure you didn't mean to, Thousand, but you didn't include my later addition of Daniel expounding on a dream he himself had that detailed the 4 kingdoms. I'll include it here:

"8:15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 8:16 And ...[text shortened]... nd did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. "

Originally posted by DarfiusI'm sure you didn't mean to, Thousand, but you didn't include my later addition of Daniel expounding on a dream he himself had that detailed the 4 kingdoms. I'll include it here:

"8:15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 8:16 And ...[text shortened]... nd did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. "

This is remarkably bad history. The Kingdom of the Medes was destroyed by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC, more than two centuries before Alexander. There were no "two horns" or "kings" of Media and Persia at the time of Alexander; the entire area was ruled by the Persians. To top it off, Alexander wasn't even a Greek; he was a Macedonian from north of Greece who conquered Greece. So much for this "prophecy".

Originally posted by no1marauder This is remarkably bad history. The Kingdom of the Medes was destroyed by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC, more than two centuries before Alexander. There were no "two horns" or "kings" of Media and Persia at the time of Alexander; the entire area was ruled by the Persians. To top it off, Alexander wasn't even a Greek; he was a Macedonian from north of Greece who conquered Greece. So much for this "prophecy".

Originally posted by no1marauder This is remarkably bad history. The Kingdom of the Medes was destroyed by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC, more than two centuries before Alexander. There were no "two horns" or "kings" of Media and Persia at the time ...[text shortened]... rth of Greece who conquered Greece. So much for this "prophecy".

First of all, where does it say Alexander is FROM Greece? It clearly says the king OF Greece (which is what he was).

Let's see what Cyrus the Great thought about this Median/Persian empire:

The emergence of Iranian civilization

Towards the end of the 7th century BC, the Medians had subdued great parts of Iran, including the entire west. Tribes such as the Persians, Parthians, Hyrcanians and Sagartians came under Median rule. By conquest as in the case of Assyria, or by diplomacy, as in the case of Lydia, the Medians have removed all their opponents. The life in the Median "empire" was peaceful, basically because the tribes kept a lot of their independent rights, usually being just vassals. It is not certain how far the Median rule stretched to the east, whether it controlled Bactria or not, but The Medians were the first to bring unity to Iran, and they apparently were able to protect their borders; their doom came from the inside.

The End of the Median Empire

As the Median king Astyages became more powerful, his despotic might grew as well. The people became more and more unhappy under his rule, and many neglected his suzerainty. One of them was Cambyses, a Persian vassal king, who founded his own kingdom in 576 BC. His son, Cyrus, openly revolted against the Medians. He defeated them in two battles before taking their capital, Hagmatana, in 550 BC and thus ending the deiocid dynasty. However, he did not appear as a conqueror. His aim was to unite Medians and Persians under his rule, and thus, he proclaimed himself as king of the Medians; he united both empires. This is the reason why the Achaemenid Empire is often called "Empire of Medians and Persians", and why to the Greeks, the term "Medians" was equal to that of the "Persians".

So what were you saying, no1? Who did Alexander defeat again? And what happened when Alexander died? Oh yea, his empire was split into four parts (just like in the prophecy written in the late 6th century BC).

There is a legend that as Alexander was about to sack Jerusalem, he was shown the prophecy of Daniel's and was so impressed that he spared the city.

As everyone can clearly see, Daniel saw the future exactly as it played out centuries beforehand.

Originally posted by no1marauder Alexander was no more the "King of Greece" than George W Bush is the "President of Iraq" because he conquered it.

The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

"Kings" is plural.

You're getting desperate, no1. Why won't you just come to the Lord? Why do you resist so?

Alexander's father, Philip, had Greece pledge allegiance to him. When he died, and Alexander inheritd his rule, he WAS the King of Greece.

Media controlled the Persians under a king before Cyrus took over and united the Medians and Persians under his rule. There were two kings who ruled the joint empire, and I see nowhere in the prophecy that they had to rule at the same time.

Kings is indeed plural. However, it doesn't mean at the same time. And nowhere does it say Alexander had to defeat them at the same time, or even one of them, since he came two centuries afterwards.

Originally posted by DarfiusYou're getting desperate, no1. Why won't you just come to the Lord? Why do you resist so?

Alexander's father, Philip, had Greece pledge allegiance to him. When he died, and Alexander inheritd his rule, he WAS the King of Greece. ...[text shortened]... ame two centuries afterwards.

The prophecy was exactly right.

Ridiculous. With interpretative rules like that it's no wonder you claim 100% accuracy; pretty much any set of facts can be twisted into that prophecy. I'd say the predictions of Nostradamus are far clearer than that one and just as real.

EDIT: You might also try this site which makes clear that neither Phillip nor Alexander were ever considered "King of the Greeks". http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/

Originally posted by no1marauder Ridiculous. With interpretative rules like that it's no wonder you claim 100% accuracy; pretty much any set of facts can be twisted into that prophecy. I'd say the predictions of Nostradamus are far clearer than that one and jus ...[text shortened]... considered "King of the Greeks". http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/

Give me a break. Show me a prophecy of Nostradamus' that even comes close. Typical anti-Christian spew, no1.

Let's take a poll of people and see whether they considered Alexander the Great king of the Macedonians or the Greeks. His friggin' teacher was Aristotle.

Frog, I never claimed Daniel didn't live during the Persian empire, but he made the prophecy about Alexander two centuries before his birth.

And can anyone even come close to explaining how he knew it would break into four parts to Alexander's four strongest generals???

Just give up and say Jesus is Lord. You make yourselves look like children throwing a tantrum when you deny the clear truth.

I guarantee you if you take a small leap of faith, God will show Himself to you in ways you never could have expected.

Originally posted by DarfiusGive me a break. Show me a prophecy of Nostradamus' that even comes close. Typical anti-Christian spew, no1.

Let's take a poll of people and see whether they considered Alexander the Great king of the Macedonians or the Greeks. His ...[text shortened]... od will show Himself to you in ways you never could have expected.

Who cares what modern Greeks think or don't think about events that happened 2300 years ago? You actually have no way of knowing how they would vote in such a hypothetical poll, but Alexander was the King of Macedonia and was never considered the King of Greece as the site I gave explains. Daniel probably didn't even know Macedonia existed. So what if Alexander's teacher was Aristotle; he was tutored by a foreigner nothing unusual about that. In fact, Aristotle's father was the court physician to the King of Macedonia (not Greece)! http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm

Only if you asume the prophecy has anything to do with Alexander do you get to the breakup of the Empire and the prophecy breaks down for both the reasons I gave. One, it states "Kings" of Media and Persia and there was only one King and it states King of Grecia, which Alexander wasn't. So the "prophecy" was never fulfilled.

Originally posted by no1marauder This is remarkably bad history. The Kingdom of the Medes was destroyed by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC, more than two centuries before Alexander. There were no "two horns" or "kings" of Media and Persia at the time of Alexander; the entire area was ruled by the Persians. To top it off, Alexander wasn't even a Greek; he was a Macedonian from north of Greece who conquered Greece. So much for this "prophecy".